3 ms·
Thanks for having a look! The main thing i wanted to check for as of now is the performance (in terms of memory usage) of the hash/dictionary/list library i'm u
by chubs 15y ago
Thanks for having a look!
The main thing i wanted to check for as of now is the performance (in terms of memory usage) of the hash/dictionary/list library i'm using (klib). In which case, i'm personally impressed with the work of klib's author (who, as it turns out, has chosen to be anonymous!)
- tom_b 15y agoWhat led you to klib? Looks interesting . . . given the fasta/fastq format parser in the source code base, we can guess that super high performance/low memory footprint development is pretty critical for the klib author. The macro-oriented dev stuff is kind of new to me, but I'm sadly years away from writing C.
- chubs 15y agoI googled for C hash libraries, and came across one of those 'shootout' blog posts where they compare memory size and cpu usage, and klib looked to be a winner. Plus it's only one or two header files to make it work. Documentation was poor, so i contributed some. So i'm happy with my choice. Yes, the macro-oriented stuff is a headache, but the raw speed it gives you is worth it. And don't think you're years away from C! I work in C# and javascript mainly (and recently, obj-c) so, for me, this is as much a learning exercise as anything.
- darklajid 15y agoYou get big props from me for - replying with further details and - responding in a very friendly way although my tone was neither constructive nor friendly. Thank you for that great response.
- chubs 15y agoHoly moly! What a turnaround. You're welcome :)